PC 1: Tony's Cronies

[Barclay A.A. Stanley]

Should Mandy be fired? How should the government handle appointments and should there be oversight?

[Dame Evelyn Redgrave]

I was proud to introduce the Conservative motion in the House today condemning the appointment of Peter Mandelson as CEO of the New Millennium Experience and calling for merit as the defining factor in any public appointment.

Mandelson's disastrous spells in the Cabinet should disqualify him from any major public role and yet Tony Blair has seen fit to reward him with overseeing the long-term future of the Dome project.

This is the culture of cronyism and cosiness within New Labour, one where you're appointed based on not what you know but who you know regardless of sector or industry. Peter Mandelson's appointment to the New Millennium Experience is the latest in a long line of such chummy appointments.

For the good of standards in public life, we must get rid of this New Labour culture and award jobs based on merit and experience above all. The Conservatives will ensure this in Opposition and Government and I call upon Labour to follow suit in order to change their terrible record of cronyism and cosiness.

[Will Frost]

I commend my friend and colleague Evelyn Redgrave for the speech she has made in the Commons, calling out the blatant cronyism and insideious political patronage that has become the norm within this Labour Government. Those appointed to public office, whose salaries are financed by the taxpayer, should be chosen on the basis of their qualifications, not their past relationships with the Prime Minister. I encourage all MPs, particularly those in the Labour Party, to take a stand in defense of our political institutions.

[Sir Jack Anderson]

A necessary debate has once again become mired by gossip and political spats: both inside the government and, of course, between the government and Conservative Party, who don’t particularly look above the fray but instead look like they only regret that they’re not in it.

The motion set forward by the Conservative Party is, simply put, inadequate in tackling the problem they have diagnosed. We could have a serious discussion about standards in public appointments and in establishing a body that can set and enforce such standards. We could have an independent investigation or inquiry on such standards, and unite behind any findings and recommendations. Or we could, as always, sling mud. It is most unfortunate the Conservative frontbench have settled on the latter.

[Andy Edwards]

Appointments should absolutely be made by merit. Conservative attempts to turn this into a "debate" by offering zero solutions aside, I think that's something that has universal agreement. If it's found that the particular appointment is based in the wrong reasons, it should absolutely be undone in order to promote transparency, fairness, and integrity. There's no room for "old boy's clubs" in this country where your position is determined by clout or by the fancy suits you wear or what amazing school you went to or who you know. Not in this Government, not in the Conservative Party, or anywhere else.

[Dame Evelyn Redgrave]

As I stated in my introductory speech to the House, we must work to improve how public appointments are made and ensure that the best candidate for the job is appointed based on merit rather than personal connection.

Some Labour MPs clearly have a desire to work across the House on changing standards in appointments and I welcome this wholeheartedly. In fact, given the prominence of this in their public comments thus far, I would invite them to offer their own thoughts and proposals about how we can proceed. After all, if this is to be a cross-party effort then we should hear from all sides.

However, when and if they do offer their thoughts and proposals about how we can proceed, I’d also invite Labour MPs to answer one simple question…

Is Peter Mandelson is the right man to run the New Millennium Experience?

If we are to look at standards in public appointments then Labour must look at their Prime Minister’s appointment of Mandelson. Any offers to work together and any proposals from Labour can only be taken seriously if Labour put their money where their mouth is and accept that Tony Blair has got it wrong with this Mandelson appointment.

[Andy Edwards]

This is a prime example of the Conservatives taking an idea a step too far. We can only work with them if and only if we join them in everything their motion is about. Heck, the motion only tossed in merit-based appointments as an after-thought after wanting to bring down Peter Mandelson. I've said that if this appointment is based on anything other than merit and an ability to focus on quality results for working Britons then it should absolutely be reversed and done away with. I wonder if the desire to see the right things for the right reasons is good enough for a Tory Party that only now is concerned about doing away with the "old boys clubs" that their entire party is built around.

[Brown]

The real irony is that Conservatives were in charge of the Government for decades and presided over unprecedented levels of cronyism, watching out for the "good 'ol boys", and trading tit for tat. While I disapprove of cronyism in any form and for whomever it is done, Conservatives are throwing rocks in glass houses of their own making. It is my hope that this Government will make reforms--but proper reforms, not posturing for petty political points.

[Owain Jones]

Of course there should be oversight and the more the better, the last thing Britain needs are anymore spivs and cronies at the top, we had enough of that under the Tories, their needs to be widespread overhaul of the power of patronage. What we call lobbying and networking in the UK, we call in other countries corruption .

What qualifications did Mandelson bring to the post, none that I can see, unless he was hired to attract public scandal well he has form on that.

[Sir Jack Anderson]

I think it would be futile to draw this debate to a single appointment, or to make this debate about one possible symptom instead of a wider disease. Unfortunately, cronyism is not party political and there is no party political solution - however much the Conservative Party would wish this were the case.

It's also completely unproductive to call Members of Parliament to play kangaroo court and declare a single appointment 'good' or 'bad', when the truth is we are not in command of the full facts of this appointment. Of course, we may pass subjective judgments, and I have mine - but that alone is not enough. In summary, a lack of transparency around this process is one of deep flaws of the public appointments system which we need to address.

I am Chair of the Treasury Select Committee. It is not my job to hold this government personally to account at every misstep it takes on every single appointment - it does the House and country good for me to focus on my remit. But considering members of the Opposition frontbench have decided to take ire at my constructive criticism of their conduct, and seem unable to display how to hold a government to account in a constructive, policy centred way, I have done a little bit of a 101 for them: I will write to Sir Nigel Wicks, Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, requesting he investigate the appointment of Peter Mandelson and to allow the public to know whether such an appointment breached any ethical guidelines, or if the circumstances behind the appointment were appropriate. Furthermore, I have asked him to do a wholesale review of the process of public appointments to determine if there are any steps the government can take to make the process more meritocratic, transparent and accountable.

I hope in doing so, we can soon receive answers soon that will allow us to take sensible action.